Firemonkey Madness in Las Vegas

[tniuqs]

'DwayneEMTP'

I respect many of your posts and believe that you are too intelligent to make this arguement, though it doesn't surprise me totally because a fireman's ability to justify bullshit often seem endless. I think it comes from believing all the crap you see on TV and newspapers...

I don't respect his posts.

Of course we want them cut back to reflect call volume! I don't want my city to employ 3 times as many meter readers as necessary either, but that doesn't mean that I hate meter readers. And if they have too many meter readers and the public suddenly discovers this, I don't want them to take aware a fireman's job and give it to them so that they can look productive. One chose to be a meter reader and ended up in an untenable position, the other chose to be a fireman. Once should not suffer because the other chose poorly. But according to your logic, your job should then be taken because a meter reader is certainly a more important position than the average fireman...so fuck em. Right?

Correct.

No meter maids generate revenue

And here again you're hoping we'll take this line of bullshit as fact, because you're used to the public doing so. If fire takes EMS jobs to shore up their own positions that is evil. Why? Because they are not required to compete fairly. And you really need to stop using corporate take over analogies as long as the fire service is playing with public money, money that they didn't have to prove that they deserved by creating a profit. If your profession has proved that it can't survive without diversity, that's awesome. But let's quit pretending that they are involved in "corporate America" when they are using my money to screw my neighbors.

You can justify it because in this case rape is good for you. Awesome. But at least have the balls to approach the problem honestly, quit with the bullshit analogies, call a spade a spade, as the saying goes.

I can't imagine how disappointing it must be to have worked so hard to to compete for a coveted position that allows you money, good retirement, work time leisure, unearned hero status, only to find out that you must now justify stealing from your neighbor to keep it...I hope I never know. I hope I always have more honor than that.

And if sharking jobs at any cost is ok, then can you explain the IAFFs attitude in the article below, and the gazillion other's like it

try this link to a load of porcine feces too !

http://www2.macleans.ca/tag/toronto-fire-service/

Dwayne it appears that IAFF has no boundaries or real understanding of the Paramedic Profession either.

cheers good post.

[emtannie]

Quote from original article:

The Fire Department doesn't wish to take over all emergency calls or get rid of AMR and MedicWest, Gillespie said.

"This whole deal is not to hurt ambulance companies," he said. "It's to provide good service to citizens and recover some costs for what we do."

Yet earlier in the article, it says:

“The chief estimated that if the change is adopted, the department would go from transporting about 25 patients each month to 375. It would net about $1.6 million per year for the city, he said.”

Ok, so correct me if I am wrong…. The FD call volume goes up by 350 calls/month… their income goes up by $1.6 million due to billing for those calls, calls that the private sector can no longer bill for… but they don’t want to hurt ambulance companies… WTF!

How is pulling 350 calls a month, and $1.6 million in billing NOT going to hurt the ambulance companies??? OF COURSE it will. It is simple math.

And, obviously, if you are only transporting 25 patients a month right now, you are not just trying to recover costs for “something we already do.”

The rationale given is such a shell game, Fire Chief Al Gillespie should consider a magic show at the Sahara, or if this nonsense actually gets approved, then he is good enough to get a show at the MGM Grand.

46Young, I cannot believe that you think that cutting back services to reflect call volumes for fire departments is an evil thing… you talk about corporate fiscal responsibility (“..it's survival of the fittest. Like hostile corporate takeovers..”), yet you contradict yourself with your own statement “More of you still want fire positions cut back to reflect call volume.”

If I had 2 restaurants, and one was making money, and one was losing money, why would I subsidize the one that is losing money with funds from the one that is making money? In the long run, that is incredibly poor financial management, and yet, that is exactly what FD’s are doing when they take over EMS services. They are not doing it in the interest of the public – they are doing it to shore up their FD spending. Obviously, the 2 private EMS companies are profitable in Las Vegas, or they would not be there… since the fire department doesn’t have to compete on a level playing field, their tactics are obviously not based on good fiscal management or patient care.

[BushyFromOz]

try this link to a load of porcine feces too !

http://www2.macleans.ca/tag/toronto-fire-service/

I think i threw up in my mouth a little.....

[akflightmedic]

I think i threw up in my mouth a little.....

I personally like the staging of the photo...

Gloves on to check his equipment inside his station

The partially deployed LSB

The jacket casually hanging with his name showing

The suspenders...

Propaganda at it's finest

[46Young]

I respect many of your posts and believe that you are too intelligent to make this arguement, though it doesn't surprise me totally because a fireman's ability to justify bullshit often seem endless. I think it comes from believing all the crap you see on TV and newspapers...

Of course we want them cut back to reflect call volume! I don't want my city to employ 3 times as many meter readers as necessary either, but that doesn't mean that I hate meter readers. And if they have too many meter readers and the public suddenly discovers this, I don't want them to take aware a fireman's job and give it to them so that they can look productive. One chose to be a meter reader and ended up in an untenable position, the other chose to be a fireman. Once should not suffer because the other chose poorly. But according to your logic, your job should then be taken because a meter reader is certainly a more important position than the average fireman...so fuck em. Right?

Correct.

And here again you're hoping we'll take this line of bullshit as fact, because you're used to the public doing so. If fire takes EMS jobs to shore up their own positions that is evil. Why? Because they are not required to compete fairly. And you really need to stop using corporate take over analogies as long as the fire service is playing with public money, money that they didn't have to prove that they deserved by creating a profit. If your profession has proved that it can't survive without diversity, that's awesome. But let's quite pretending that they are involved in "corporate America" when they are using my money to screw my neighbors.

You can justify it because in this case rape is good for you. Awesome. But at least have the balls to approach the problem honestly, quit with the bullshit analogies, call a spade a spade, as the saying goes.

I can't imagine how disappointing it must be to have worked so hard to to compete for a coveted position that allows you money, good retirement, work time leisure, unearned hero status, only to find out that you must now justify stealing from your neighbor to keep it...I hope I never know. I hope I always have more honor than that.

And if sharking jobs at any cost is ok, then can you explain the IAFFs attitude in the article below, and the gazillion other's like it?

http://www.dearbornf...per%20Woods.pdf

Dwayne

Edited for grammar correction. No contextual changes made.

Here's a video from my dept that does a great job of explaining the importance of safe and proper staffing levels. You need to watch the entire video, as many important points are made, and are explained in simple laymen's terms.

The video clearly shows the importance of having the proper number of FF's on each unit, how crucial the response time is, and also why it's also vital to have enough units to respond. Downstaffing personnel and units will result in loss of life and property. Even if one structure isn't able to be saved, as some have mentioned due to the new type 5 construction, there are many cluster homes, townhomes and other such exposures that need to be protected. No one who has any real knowledge of suppression knowledge can dismiss or discredit the content of the video. These are real world examples and experiences of which they speak, not propaganda or fantasy.

I challenge anyone here to explain to me what part or parts of the video are propaganda and fabricated lies. Explain why, contrary to the video's content, it's a smart move to pare back FD staffing and amount of units due to call volume alone. You can go a week, or even a month without a structure fire, but they don't burn any slower when the area has a low call volume. I don't understand how using call volume as a guide for FD staffing makes sense. When the call comes in, it needs a proper response, no matter how few and far between the calls come in. When one of you loses a family member or your life's possessions in a fire, it'll become instantly clear to you. A person may need the FD once in their life, but when they do, it can be life or death. Key word here is "need". Not want, or nice to have, but need. A downstaffed, extended response is inappropriate.

Edited February 21, 2010 by 46Young

[Richard B the EMT]

If this really is in the best interest of the public, and not the money.....hell, let's combine police/fire/EMS and we can all do all three jobs.

I believe you left out Sanitation, Power, Water, Sewer, street light maintenance, traffic light maintenance, highway maintenance, traffic and parking enforcement, and possibly airport air traffic controller.

[emtannie]

Here's a video from my dept that does a great job of explaining the importance of safe and proper staffing levels. You need to watch the entire video, as many important points are made, and are explained in simple laymen's terms.

The video clearly shows the importance of having the proper number of FF's on each unit, how crucial the response time is, and also why it's also vital to have enough units to respond. Downstaffing personnel and units will result in loss of life and property. Even if one structure isn't able to be saved, as some have mentioned due to the new type 5 construction, there are many cluster homes, townhomes and other such exposures that need to be protected. No one who has any real knowledge of suppression knowledge can dismiss or discredit the content of the video. These are real world examples and experiences of which they speak, not propaganda or fantasy.

I challenge anyone here to explain to me what part or parts of the video are propaganda and fabricated lies. Explain why, contrary to the video's content, it's a smart move to pare back FD staffing and amount of units due to call volume alone. You can go a week, or even a month without a structure fire, but they don't burn any slower when the area has a low call volume. I don't understand how using call volume as a guide for FD staffing makes sense. When the call comes in, it needs a proper response, no matter how few and far between the calls come in. When one of you loses a family member or your life's possessions in a fire, it'll become instantly clear to you. A person may need the FD once in their life, but when they do, it can be life or death. Key word here is "need". Not want, or nice to have, but need. A downstaffed, extended response is inappropriate.

In the link you provided, the entire 9 minute and 22 second video relates specifically to fire suppression, and the need for 4 people on the truck, not 3. All discussion of duties is fire suppression related. Not one single word was related to EMS operations. Not one single EMS vehicle or person was shown or interviewed.

Watching the video, I cringed – I know a bit about structure fire tactics, as my husband is deputy fire chief in my area, and my father in law was fire chief in his city for many years, and had over 35 years experience before retiring. On a fire scene, having one person on a roof, or one person on an attack, or one person doing an interior search, is just plain STUPID. That is completely unnecessary risk of life and limb. THAT is the argument that was used in the video – that having 4 members would provide better care to community, and better safety to crews. I am OK with that approach.

The point that you have chosen to completely ignore, is that fire departments, specifically the LVFD, are not staffing their services appropriately, and in order to staff them appropriately, are stealing from EMS.

Even from your video – the question that was never asked, nor answered, was WHY Fairfax County was only staffing with 3 members.. was the reason financial? I bet it was! So, the problem is then, justifying the increased crew, and increased cost, which is a huge POLITICAL issue. Politicians and administrators don’t look at staffing as people – they are just looking at the bottom line. They don’t look at calls as real people involved – just the repurcussions if things go wrong and how it makes them look bad.

The original point of this thread is that the Las Vegas FD is STEALING from EMS to justify its staffing levels and budget, rather than justify their staffing with a common sense approach and educating the public. Why are they doing this? My guess is because they can’t justify their current budget and their current toys, and now that they are in a tough financial position, they are looking for a bandaid solution (pun intended). Fire should be made to stand on its own, and justify its expenditures, exactly as EMS does, not use EMS revenues to subsidize fire.

Again, refer to the restaurant analogy I used in my previous post.

[HERBIE1]

Here's a video from my dept that does a great job of explaining the importance of safe and proper staffing levels. You need to watch the entire video, as many important points are made, and are explained in simple laymen's terms.

The video clearly shows the importance of having the proper number of FF's on each unit, how crucial the response time is, and also why it's also vital to have enough units to respond. Downstaffing personnel and units will result in loss of life and property. Even if one structure isn't able to be saved, as some have mentioned due to the new type 5 construction, there are many cluster homes, townhomes and other such exposures that need to be protected. No one who has any real knowledge of suppression knowledge can dismiss or discredit the content of the video. These are real world examples and experiences of which they speak, not propaganda or fantasy.

I challenge anyone here to explain to me what part or parts of the video are propaganda and fabricated lies. Explain why, contrary to the video's content, it's a smart move to pare back FD staffing and amount of units due to call volume alone. You can go a week, or even a month without a structure fire, but they don't burn any slower when the area has a low call volume. I don't understand how using call volume as a guide for FD staffing makes sense. When the call comes in, it needs a proper response, no matter how few and far between the calls come in. When one of you loses a family member or your life's possessions in a fire, it'll become instantly clear to you. A person may need the FD once in their life, but when they do, it can be life or death. Key word here is "need". Not want, or nice to have, but need. A downstaffed, extended response is inappropriate.

Psst- you aren't talking to civilians or some clueless politicians here-many of us DO work in this business. You sound like a PSA bought and paid for by the IAFF. As a matter of fact, I believe that video you linked has been used by the IAFF, but I digress. Listen, I know about the push for manning- nothing new. I also know that in many areas, unless there is a life safety issue, aggressive interior attacks are a thing of the past. Things like master streams and aerial pipes are used now more than ever before- surround and drown. You are absolutely correct about when you need a firefighter, you want 50 guys to show up in less than a minute, with state of the art equipment, have a positive water supply, no frozen hydrants, no lead out problems, all having 20 years experience, hundreds of fires under their belts, and all possessing every certification known to man- from Haz Mat to swift water rescue. Now back to real life...

The fire service is used to being the sacred cow- and for good reason. Problem is, times have changed, fires ARE way down, and the fire service has adapted to that by absorbing EMS. Smart for them, not necessarily what's best for the public. The fire service- and IAFF's- number one priority has always been, and will always be fire suppression and rescue. For many areas, 3-4 man companies have always been the norm, and mutual aid agreements supplement their manpower. Ideal- no, but it's reality. In today's economy, an area's police service, EMS, and a dozen other services would suffer if fire received everything they asked for.

IAFF is suffering from the same thing that killed Detroit- union arrogance. When times are great, unions negotiate incredible pay and benefits packages. If anyone knows about some of the famous(and often times ridiculous) perks the UAW managed to get for it's members, you know what I mean. Even when a company is losing money, they are required to pay their members. That's fine and great for a member, but a union also needs to be realistic about it's demands and expectations. Unions like the UAW finally agreed to concessions, but it essentially was too little, too late. Big auto needed to be bailed out- their legacy obligations were killing them.

I know you cannot put a price tag on public safety, but the sad reality is that it's necessary. I believe in premium pay for risking your life, responding to incidents when everyone else is running away- that's what we do and we should be well compensated for it. Sadly, too many of us are not- especially those in EMS, and just because fire has a longer history, more members, and a stronger lobbying arm, it does not mean it has the right to walk over EMS- especially when it's not providing a better option.

[emtannie]

I know you cannot put a price tag on public safety, but the sad reality is that it's necessary. I believe in premium pay for risking your life, responding to incidents when everyone else is running away- that's what we do and we should be well compensated for it. Sadly, too many of us are not- especially those in EMS, and just because fire has a longer history, more members, and a stronger lobbying arm, it does not mean it has the right to walk over EMS- especially when it's not providing a better option.

Very very well said, Herbie.

The sad thing is, IAFF doesn't even see that instead of building up EMS, they are contributing to the continued mistreatment of EMS as a profession. EMS continues to be the Cinderella of emergency services, and Fire the evil step-mother... all Fire sees EMS as good for is to do the dirty work, and bring in money to subsidize Fire. We have to continue to fight for change.

46Young, you have discussed your own service to death... exactly what do you think of the LVFD tactics? Why do you feel that they are in the right, to do what they are doing, by their own admission, to save FD jobs? They are not improving services or increasing services; they are using EMS as their cash cow to subsidize their operations, at the expense of EMS. How do you justify that?

[aussiephil]

IAFF has agian provided a smoke screen to deflect frm the real discussion.

Is havin combined EMS/Fire really in the best interes of the general public, or is it best for the fire department because it increases their rofile, increases their workload & gaurentee's their jobs.

I give them 10/10 for trying to preserve their members jobs, but to tell lies about it being in the best interest of public is takng it a bit too far.

46young has already told us, is either this thread or another, that 30% of their workload is fire surpression.

30%.

So where is the bulk of the work? EMS. But it is a good excuse to et the BRT out so everyone can see it, so people will think they are more important than they really are.

Now, what is better for he public, stand alone EMS, orglory seeking firemen justifying theor jobs?